( 1 ) I have had the advantage of perusing the instructive judgment prepared by my learned brother, Ranganadham Chetty J. I do not propose to express my view on the interpretation of the second paragraph of Section 10 of the Limitation Act. I would rather prefer to base my conclusion on the provisions of Article 120 of the Limitation Act.

( 2 ) THE facts relevant to appreciate the question raised may be briefly stated. The Endowments Board framed a scheme in the year 1927 for the management of the temple of Malleswaraswami situated in Balijepalli Agraharam of Guntur District. Under the scheme, three non-hereditary trustees were appointed. Prior to the scheme, three persons, claiming to be hereditary trustees, were in possession of the properties belonging to the temple. After the scheme, two of them surrendered possession but one Balakrishniah set up the claims that he prescribed for the right of trusteeship by adverse possession and that he was entitled to continue in management undisturbed so long as he was accounting for the profits of the deity. That plea was not accepted by the trustees and they took possession of the lands through court on 24-12-1942. Thereafter